alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2221 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2221

               To extend the duty suspension on Mesamoll.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2005

   Ms. Hart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To extend the duty suspension on Mesamoll.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MESAMOLL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.38.14 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to a mixture of phenyl esters 
of C<INF>10</INF>-C<INF>18</INF> alkylsulfonic acids) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Oleg Cassini, Deceased. Christina Cassini, Respondent; Marianne Nestor Cassini, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 919] —

In a probate proceeding in which Christina Cassini petitioned pursuant to SCPA 1809 to determine the validity of a claim against the estate of the decedent, Oleg Cassini, Marianne Nestor Cassini, the executor of the decedent’s estate, appeals from (1) a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated September 18, 2009, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 4, 2009, which, upon the decision, denied her converted motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended petition and granted the petitioner’s cross motion for summary judgment on the amended petition.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

*1311Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by an order of the same court (McCarty III, S.), dated February 18, 2011, made upon renewal and reargument *(see Matter of Cassini,*95 AD3d 1311 [2012] [decided herewith]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                             317,034
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    2,761,729
<ALLOWANCES>                       235,000
<INVENTORY>                      2,802,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 5,678,804
<PP&E>                           2,221,593
<DEPRECIATION>                   1,617,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   8,032,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            3,880,233
<BONDS>                             40,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                           124,496
<OTHER-SE>                       3,665,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     8,032,761
<SALES>                         13,888,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                13,888,242
<CGS>                            8,288,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    8,502,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 107,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,009,820)
<INCOME-TAX>                         1,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,011,550)
<DISCONTINUED>                     975,276
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,036,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.16)
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Stephen A. Mishkin, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

June 2, 1986

*423APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gary L. Casella (Gary D. Egerman*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Aronwald & Pykett (William I. Aronwald*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on January 3, 1955, under the name Stephen Alan Mishkin.

On December 18, 1985, the respondent was found guilty after a nonjury trial in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, of five counts of grand larceny in the second degree, a class D felony (Penal Law § 155.35). On January 16, 1986, the respondent was sentenced to five concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 21/3 to 7 years.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent’s application for a stay of the instant proceeding pending this court’s determination of his appeal from his criminal conviction, is denied. The respondent is disbarred and it is directed that the respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law forthwith. Inasmuch as the charges which were essentially the subject of a disciplinary proceeding resulted in the convictions as outlined above, the disciplinary proceeding is moot and the order dated June 1, 1984, authorizing said proceeding and the orders dated September 11, 1984, January 4, 1985, and March 1, 1985, respectively, referring the matter for a hearing, should be vacated.

Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6498

DOUGLAS DEMPSEY, III, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:08-cv-01054-HFF)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Dempsey, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Dempsey, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dempsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15627]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4526-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Delaware; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4526-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, MaryAnn 
Tierney, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Janice P. Barlow as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-15627 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
#### Kevin J. Vivyan et al., Appellants, v Ilion Central School District et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[942 NYS2d 835]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered April 29, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, denied the motion of plaintiffs to set aside the verdict or for a new trial.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Smith v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens,*155 AD2d 435 [1989]; *see also*CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.
----

| Form      S-3 Nos. 333-102194, 333-102194-01 and 333-102194-02 | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc., ITLA Capital Trust VI and ITLA Capital Trust      VII                                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Form      S-8 Nos. 333-28901 and 333-86040                     | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock IncentivePlan                                                          |
| Form      S-8 No. 333-129703                                   | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc. 2005 Re-Designated, Amended and Restated Employee      Stock Incentive Plan                |
| Form      S-8 No. 333-28931                                    | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee      Directors                                     |
| Form      S-8 No. 333-129702                                   | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc. 2005 Re-Designated, Amended and Restated Stock      Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors |
| Form      S-8 No. 333-28899                                    | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc. Voluntary Retainer Stock and Deferred Compensation      Plan for Outside Directors         |
| Form      S-8 No. 333-28905                                    | Imperial      Capital Bancorp, Inc. Recognition and Retention  Plan                                                            |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7132

MELVIN P. DEUTSCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED

STATES MARSHALS SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-408-2)

Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin P. Deutsch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order requiring him to

pay a partial filing fee in order to pursue his complaint filed

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). This issue has already been resolved

against Appellant. Deutsch v. United States Dep't of Justice, No.

95-7928 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 1996) (unpublished). We have reviewed

the record and the district court's order and find that this appeal

is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), as amended by Prison Reform Litigation Act

of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021206EN.01002402.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/24

---

Order of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

(Case T-306/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Agricultural policy - Organic production - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Production and labelling of organic products - Organic products imported into the European Union - Certification of products by a control body - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2021/C 206/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV (Nieuwe-Tonge, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Almeida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, A. Dawes and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446 of 19 March 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 67), in so far as that provision, in conjunction with point 3 of Annex II to that implementing regulation, withdraws the recognition of Control Union Certifications as a competent body for carrying out controls and issuing certificates of inspection authorising the placing on the EU market, as organic products, of products imported from Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the applications for measures of organisation of procedure and for the examination of witnesses submitted by Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the applications for measures of organisation of procedure and for the examination of witnesses submitted by Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV.

| 3. | Graanhandel P. van Schelven shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Graanhandel P. van Schelven shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
# C_2021502EN.01001902.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Rosca v Commission

(Case T-434/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 - Decision of the selection board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Article 27 of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 502/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioana-Felicia Rosca (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L.-O. Tufler and B. Nelissen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, D. Milanowska and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 22 March 2019, based on qualifications and tests, rejecting the applicant’s application and excluding her from the assessment centre for that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ioana-Felicia Rosca to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ioana-Felicia Rosca to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINCOLN D. FINLEY, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JAMES FISCHER, Officer APD ;

MICHAEL AGOSTA,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15073

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv

- 00913

- HSG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017 **

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Lincoln D. Finley, Jr.

, appeals pro se from the district court’ s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims

pertaining to his arrest and prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not prec edent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15073

under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

. Whitaker v. Garcetti , 486 F.3d

572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007)

. W e affirm.

The district court properly dis missed Finley’s claims alleging a false arrest

and detention without probable cause as Heck

- barred because success on Finley’s

claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and

Finley failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck , 512 U .S.

at 486

- 87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the

invalidity o f his conviction or sentence

. . . the complaint must be dismissed unless

the plaintiff can demonstrat e that the conviction or sentence has already been

invalidated”). We treat the dismissal of these claims as being without prejudice.

See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa , 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissals

under Heck are without prejudice)

.

Finley’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.8

Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet



|                                               |  |                         |        | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------ | 
|Annual Retainer                                |  | $                       | 39,655 | 
|                                               | 
|Type of Meeting                                |  | Amount Paid per Meeting |       
|Board Meeting                                  |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Special Meeting                                |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Telephonic Board Meeting                       |  | $                       | 1,130  | 
|Compensation & Nominating Committee Meeting    |  | $                       | 1,700  | 
|Audit Committee Meeting                        |  | $                       | 3,400  | 
|Executive Committee Meeting                    |  | $                       | 3,965  | 
|Additional Fee for Chairperson (except Audit)  |  | $                       | 1,700  | 
|Additional Fee for Audit Committee Chairperson |  | $                       | 2,265  | 
|                                               |  |                         |        | 



64
**Exhibit 10.8**

Medallion Financial Corp. 

437Madison Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

March 7, 2017 

Larry D. Hall 

Dear Larry: 

On February 15, 2017, the CompensationCommittee of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Medallion Financial Corp. (the “Company”) approved management’s recommendation to provide you with the benefit described below. 

In the event (a) of a Change in Control (as defined below) and you are not offered an equivalent position with the Company (in respect of pay orresponsibilities), or (b) you are terminated without Cause (as defined below), the Company shall promptly pay you a lump sum equal to your total compensation for the prior fiscal year. 

“Change in Control” shall be deemed to have taken place if (i) any “Person” (as such term is defined in Section 3(a)(9) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and as used in Sections 13(d)(3) and 14(d)(2) of the Exchange Act) other than Alvin Murstein or Andrew Murstein, or any of their affiliates, is or becomes a “beneficial owner”(as defined in Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act), directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company representing 50% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then outstanding securitieseligible to vote for the election of the Board. 

“Cause” shall mean the (i) defalcation, fraud or personal dishonesty in the performance ofyour duties hereunder, (ii) willful acts of gross misconduct or gross negligence by you in the performance of your duties hereunder, (iii) an intentional breach of this Agreement by you or any willful or intentional act by you that ismaterially injurious to the Company, (iv) substantial and continued failure by you to perform his duties hereunder; provided that the Company’s economic performance or failure to meet any specific projection shall not, in and of itself,constitute “Cause”, (v) willful failure by you to follow the lawful directions of the Board or its designee, (vi) your illegal use of drugs (including narcotics) which is, or could reasonably be expected to become, materiallyinjurious to the reputation or business of the Company or which impairs, or could reasonably be expected to impair, the performance of your duties hereunder, (vii) your conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of, or pleading“guilty” or “no contest” to, (x) a felony, or (y) any other criminal charge which has or could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s reputation and standing in the community.

On behalf of the Medallion family, thank you for all of your hard work and dedication. Please sign and date this letter in the space provided below. 

Very truly yours, 

Accepted and Agreed: 

/s/Larry D. Hall                    3/8/17

Larry D.Hall                        Date